After reading the article about President Obamaâ€™s speech singling out those who have seen their health insurance costs go down or gotten rebates, I have to wonder when is he going to have a speech about people like me who have seen their health insurance costs go up by 50 percent in the space of one month. Or perhaps we would be too inconvenient for the health care law supporters to acknowledge.

David Forsyth, Denver

This letter was published in the July 23 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

Health insurance costs have been rising for decades. How is that news?

thor

Because the promise by the President that they would go down. Another proof of how foolish it was to sign a bill that few people read and others were duped into voting for.

Tbone

Unnnnhhh…..costs for insurance purchased through exchanges so far has been very promising. 50% cheaper in NY, cheaper here in CO, cheaper in CA.

Obamacare doesn’t do anything to regulate the cost of private insurance plans. Because that would be socialism, now, wouldn’t it, thor?

thor

I’m glad you are against socialism. That’s a good sign, isn’t it, tbone.

Steve R

Don’t expect Tbag to let the truth get in the way, Tbag lives in a world where facts and figures only matter when they support his/her agenda. I would assume even he isn’t ignorant enough to think that the initial numbers which account for such a ridiculously small amount of the actual population, really is representative of the true costs of exchanges. Of course based on some of his other ignorant posts he might just be liberal enough to believe it.

thor

True. Plus, he conveniently ignores the fact that the purpose of Obamacare isn’t to help the uninsured but to drive our country to a single payer system.

tomfromthenews

“…to drive our country to a single payer system.”

Not THERE’S a plan that makes sense!

thor

If it made sense then the President wouldn’t keep on trying to delay the unworkable parts. If it made sense, then there would be provisions for more competition by allowing people to by health insurance anywhere in the country like we do auto insurance. If it made sense, then it would include health savings accounts.

Fowler

Obama and the Democrats just want to get past the 2014 mid-terms. That’s why they’re so terrified of the bill, they know they can’t share the blame with the Republicans or pin it on the Supreme Court. It’s all theirs. Based on the 2010 mid-term results they could lose the Senate if Obamacare starts to crank up and people actually see what’s in it (aka Pelosi). Hence all the waivers for big corporations, the extension of the employer mandate, etc.

Tbone

The president, unlike the repubs, is willing to compromise, as he showed with the delay.

Buying insurance across state lines doesn’t work. Pretty sure we’ve already been over this, thor. But for a refresher, the states that have tried it – not a single insurance company offered plans.

And you’re free to set up an HSA.

Tbone

Because that would be better for America and it’s inhabitants?

But no, we can’t have that! That might actually help someone.

Tbone

Such a thoughtful, meaningful reply, as we’ve learned to expect from the village idiot.

the scorekeeper

“I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my
first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family’s premium by up to $2,500 a year.” Barack Obama

Estimates are that the average premiums will increase by $110.for the typical family of four.

Tbone

Except we didn’t get a universal health care bill, because republicans won’t let us have nice things. And they want to punish poor people.

guest

Let’s see. The Democrats passed the law without any Republican support, so if you think someone wants to punish poor people it had to be democrats.

Tbone

Of course there was no republican support. Repubs only want to punish people, not help them. That’s kinda the point of my comment.

The dems were foolish enough to negotiate with republicans, who turned around and stabbed them in the back.

Fowler

“The dems were foolish enough to negotiate with republicans, who turned around and stabbed them in the back.”

Obamacare passed without a single Republican vote. The Democrats used the budget reconciliation process to pass the bill without the usual requirement for 60 votes in the Senate. So the Republicans couldn’t negotiate anything, and the Democrats could put whatever they wanted in the bill – which is exactly what they did. The bill was 100% Democratic legislation. So explain again how the Republicans stabbed anyone in the back? Your revisionist history doesn’t hold up. Obama and the Democrats own the legislation 100%.

Tbone

My response seems to have disappeared….

“Obamacare passed without a single Republican vote”

Of course it did. That was my point, genius.

“pass the bill without the usual requirement for 60 votes in the Senate”

There is no such requirement. Please educate yourself. Seriously – can you even tell us how many votes it takes to pass a bill in the senate?

“The bill was 100% Democratic legislation.”

Incorrect. The senate agreed to over 160 republican amendments.

Please, your ignorant grasp of the facts of the matter don’t help your argument. Try to learn something rather than spout idiotic talking points.

60 votes. LOL.

Best,

guest

Really? So why after Scott Brown got elected reducing the number of Democrats so they didn’t have 60 votes did the House Democrats accept the Senate bill word for word in the House? It was because they couldn’t get closure if they had to vote again on the bill. 60 votes is needed for closure according to the Senate rules and the Constitution says this:

‘Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.” So there is such a requirement.

You should have paid more attention in civics.

Tbone

What is closure, and what does that have to do with passing a bill?

How many votes does it take to pass a bill in the senate? Easy question.

And what does your quote have to do with “closure”?

Fowler

Obviously he meant “cloture”. Enough with the free civics lessons for you.

Tbone

Free civics lessons like it takes 60 votes to pass a bill in the senate?

Thanks, yea, I’ll pass on those.

Fowler

“Thanks, yea, I’ll pass on those”

Actually, if you were in a civics class you would get a “fail” not a pass – pretending the Senate’s rules don’t exist or matter doesn’t get you any points. Go back a research how Reid pushed the bill through to avoid Rule 22 – it’s pretty much all over the internet if you want to educate yourself, unlikely as that may seem.

Tbone

And yet you still don’t acknowledge Rule 22 only serves when there is a filibuster.

Fowler

Where did I ever say that Rule 22 doesn’t apply to cloture and filibuster? My entire discussion referred specifically to filibuster and cloture and Obamacare and how Dirty harry circumvented the usual 60 vote process. I also never said it takes 60 votes to pass a bill in the Senate, it usually takes 60 votes to get to an up or down vote – work on your reading comprehension. Here’s the short version – if you can’t get a cloture vote, you don’t even get to an up or down vote on the bill, unless you use a parliamentary procedure.

Think of it like football. You get a score if you cross the goal line, but if you never even get the ball you can’t score.

You still won’t answer why you’re so worried about having only Democrats’ fingerprints on the bill will you? I guess it’s obvious – no one else to blame when engine blows up except the mechanic who built it.

Tbone

There is no usual 60 vote process, for the millionth time. Only when there’s a filibuster. Otherwise a motion to end debate is used. See, you don’t get that repubes have made the filibuster so commonplace that you think there’s actually a 60 vote requirement to end debate.

And I’m not worried about the ACA. It’s working. You are the one that should be worried – it’s going to destroy the republican party.

Fowler

Your ignorance of how the Senate works and its history is profound. Every Senator has a right to debate a bill as long as he or she wants. There is no such thing as a majority motion to end debate. From the Congressional Research Service Report: Filibusters and Cloture in the Senate – “there is no motion by which a simple majority of the Senate can stop a debate and allow itself to vote in favor of an amendment, a bill or resolution, or any other debatable question.” The only way debate ends is when all senators agree that the debate is over or by a cloture vote. This has been Senate practice for 100 years and has been used by both parties extensively. The issue is whether you end debate voluntarily or by cloture. It would do you good to go to the Senate’s website and read the CRS report. You would be less confused.

Tbone

Wow. You still don’t get it. Cloture is only envoked unless a filibuster has been placed on a bill.

Your ignorance of how the senate works and its history is profound.

guest

No, the 60 votes for closure (its interchangeable with cloture since it is the English version of the French word cloture) can be invoked by the majority party to end the debate on a bill. I’ve never heard of a filibuster being place on a bill (perhaps you meant putting a hold on a bill, that is, to threaten to filibuster a bill).

Fowler

Final time – you don’t “place a filibuster on a bill”; there are no rules for filibusters it’s all a question of how debate occurs. Senators can debate as long as they want, sometimes there’s an actual filibuster (ala Jimmy Stewart), sometimes there is only a threat of a filibuster, sometimes it’s just a delay. Cloture votes frequently happen even when there is no filibuster or even a threat of one. From the same CRS report: “In recent times, Senate leadership has increasingly made use of cloture as a normal tool for managing the flow of business on the floor, even at times when no evident filibuster has yet occurred.” The more you type the more obvious it becomes that you don’t have a clue, which is a good thing, but after awhile it’s like beating a cripple – just not fair or fun. But you can keep it up if you want to.

guest

“Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.” The Senate has filibuster as part of its rules. Their latest version of this is requiring 60 votes for closure. It they can’t get the 60 votes, the bill will not be put to a vote in the Senate. Now do you understand? Fowler and I both understand as do most sixth graders.

Tbone

LOL!

Yep, you guys are 6th graders. Well done!

I believe that’s called an own goal.

Closure. Awesome.

Seriously, you and fouler get together and figure it out. Let me know what the 2 of you come up with.

thor

You really have no idea how Congress works, do you.

Tbone

I know that cloture is only invoked when a filibuster has been placed on a bill. Others (won’t name names) don’t seem to get it.

Fowler

As usual it’s just too easy to pick you off – ever hear of the cloture rule? Ever hear of the filibuster? Apparently not. It has been standing procedure since 1917 under the Senate Rule 22 for 60 votes to end debate on a bill. This is the reason why Harry Reid used the budget reconciliation process to pass Obamacare. He knew he didn’t have the required 60 votes to end debate and overcome a filibuster. The recent discussions about Reid exercising the “nuclear option” to amend the 60% rule were just in the news. Before you spout off you might want to figure out just who has an “ignorant grasp of the facts”. You obviously know nothing about Senate procedure.

Tbone

Like I said, there is no “usual requirement” for 60 votes. No such thing.

How many votes does it take to pass a bill in the senate?

Easy question.

Fowler

Not so “easy” actually since the Senate Rules drive the process. A majority prevails on bills for which debate has ended. If debate has not ended it takes 60 to prevail on a cloture vote. Without a cloture vote the bill does not move to a vote for approval or denial. So the threshold is 60 votes initially then a majority once debate ends (unless a procedural dodge like reconciliation is used – which has usually been for budget matters, not major national healthcare reform). That’s how it’s been done for almost 100 years under Rule 22, which is the “usual requirement”. That’s also why the Senate is considered the more deliberative body of government since the minority has traditionally been afforded more procedural protections than in the House, until Obamacare came along. If the Act is so great why are you so reluctant to admit that it’s all Democrats and zero Republicans that passed it?

Tbone

Right. So there is no usual requirement for 60 votes. Glad to see it.

There’s only a requirements for 60 votes to end debate, and as we all know, the repubes filibuster every single bill as routine, because “deliberative”.

But hey, it’s not like the repubs have ever used reconciliation to pass bills, right?

Fowler

Under Senate Rule 22 the minority can extend debate indefinitely and a bill will die, unless there is a cloture vote which (as of 1975) requires 60 votes. So “usually” the Senate needs 60 votes to get to a floor vote up or down. Reid got around that by using the reconciliation maneuver. You continue to pretend that these procedural rules don’t exist or matter. I don’t know why you think that helps your argument, but obviously you don’t care much about details or facts concerning how the Senate operates. Both parties have used Rule 22 to kill bills or extend debate to add amendments and revisions. Both parties haves used reconciliation, but typically for budget related matters, not major bills like Obamacare. So again – why are you so afraid to acknowledge that Obama’s signature legislation is solely a creature of the Democrats’ vote?

Tbone

sigh.

Only when there is a filibuster.

See, filibusters have now become so routine, thanks to repub obstructionism, that you guys think that this is commonplace.

It’s not.

guest

The idea behind the 60 vote level is to cut of further debate. It is a weapon of the majority party that they use when they don’t want to waste their time listening to the ideas and voting on minority party amendments. In the end it gets you a law that the majority party wants to pass so they can see what is in it.

The minority party can also use the threat of a filibuster as a way to require a super majority of votes to pass a particularly contentious bill. So your contention that it only takes a majority to pass a bill while true for most laws wasn’t true for Obamacare. And when the Democrats lost Kennedy’s seat to Scott Brown they used reconciliation to pass Obamacare a use of which was never intended.

guest

The Dems negotiated (and bribed) other Democrats. Don’t try to pin the blame on the Republicans. The Democrats didn’t need the Republicans and they showed it in their high-handed tactics. No backstabbing from the Republicans. It was the blue dogs they had to satisfy.

For those who didn’t have health insurance before and have been forced to buy health insurance……the cost of health insurance has definitely gone up……although the argument can be made that, because of the cost of health insurance they are now paying for, “some” people may experience less overall health care costs…….while “some” (“most”?) other people pay more for health insurance than they get in return……just as Most People pay more in insurance costs for auto insurance, home insurance than they gain in benefits.

Why? Because that’s the “way” “Insurance”…..WORKS.

Whether it is Health, Auto, Home, Life, or any kind of insurance…..the whole idea is that A Whole Lot Of People pay INTO a program that actually benefits only “some” or “a few”……in the hope that if – IF – you suffer a catastrophe……you will be one of those “some” who will reap the huge benefits of having insurance.

In other words……insurance is simply…..gambling…..betting……by buying a policy that offers benefits to those who need them…….with the understanding that NOT EVERYONE or even that MOST people will need them……but only “some” people will reap those benefits in given year……and that, while “everyone” could – could – be one of those “some”…..not everyone WILL.

For example: Say you pay $600 a year for auto insurance…….and you get in an accident and your insurance company forks out $25,000 in claims/benefits. How could an auto insurance company possibly avoid bankruptcy if it lost $24.400 a year on EVERY ONE of their policy holders? It couldn’t. The only reason the insurance company can stay in business is because MOST PEOPLE don’t get in an accident and file a claim…….and 100 OTHER policy holders who pay $600 a year and DIDN’T file a claim (1) are out $600 (2) more than make up for the one $25,000 claim.

In other words…..simply math…..that’s “simple math”…..will tell anyone…..even the President…..that while “some” may see lower costs…….rising health care costs and inflation will cause “most” to see “higher costs”…..and/or “lower benefits”……and/or “in house” doctors/hospitals they MUST be used……and that is EXACTLY what we see.

Anyone who works for a company that has offered health insurance for the past 20 years KNOWS the OBVIOUS: Health care costs have gone up……and with that……health care insurance costs have gone up……sometimes with reduced benefits……higher co-pays……and limited/restricted health care providers to choose from.

Health Care Costs are NOT going to go down anymore than Tuition at most Universities are ever going to go down……anymore than than the President’s salary will ever return to $40,000 a year.

It would be nice if “quality health care” could be “automated” and/or “outsourced” overseas like TVs, computers, and the latest smart phone…….where prices actually DO drop over time.

But we ain’t there yet.

And quality health care gets more and more expensive as “quality heath care” gets “revolutionized” and “Improved” with the latest drugs, equipment, and technology……that costs more money.

And any talk of finding “magical savings” by “finding and eliminating” fraud and waste in the Health Care Industry……itself costs time and money and manpower…..that is ALSO ripe for its own fraud and waste.

All the talk about “finding and eliminating”…….”billions”……in “fraud and waste”……in Medicare/caid, for example…….was nothing more than “all talk” about something they thought existed and claimed existed……but never thought to look into FIRST……because it may not have existed to the extent they claimed……because Politicians……drum roll…..have a habit of LYING if a LIE sounds good and believable.

“SOME” will do just fine under Obamacare…….but MOST will NOT……because the reality of ANY INSURANCE is that MOST will see rising costs year after year for the Same Level of Insurance to cover the “losses/expenditures/benefits” paid out to the…..”some” and the relatively “few.”

That is just the way insurance works. It’s the same idea that casinos operate by.

And, overall, with EVERYONE……that is the way Obamacare will work: Most will pay more while “some” will benefit.

And if TOO MANY “somes” benefit TOO MUCH……then the “most” will pay more….to offset those losses/expenditures/benefits……so that the “insurance company” can make money……make a profit……not suffer continual losses……and end up bankrupt.

andyandy

My self-employed health insurance has gone up a lot. But the exchanges won’t be up and running until 2014. My premiums are projected to be cut almost in half.

Why would the usual suspects do that? Government is bad, unless it’s subsidizing corporations.

Porter Lansing

Your healthcare insurance costs have gone up because the provider is taking their last attempt at bending you over and gouging the public as they’ve done for decades before Obamacare levels the playing field next year. In October get on the exchange and find a better policy based on cost, coverage and competition.

guest

The Democrats in congress are in a near panic. They need to get a lot of young people to sign up for healthcare at inflated rates to allow them to insure pre-existing conditions, etc. If the young people decide to pay the tax instead, Obamacare is cooked.

Porter Lansing

Stay afraid, fool. You’re predictable.

Dano2

Never fear (ahem), there’s an entire industry out there paid to keep him afraid. And an entire army of fools choosing to be afraid.

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.

To reach the Denver Post editorial page by phone: 303-954-1331

Recent Comments

peterpi: I think I have this correct: Voters in Jefferson County elected school board members that the superintendent...

peterpi: Sounds good to me. For future employees. I believe police and fire dept. brass have also been known to get...